Assessing Arm Volume in People During and After Treatment for Breast Cancer: Reliability and Convergent Validity of the LymphaTech System
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are challenges related to the accurate and efficient measurement of lymphedema in people with breast cancer. The LymphaTech 3D Imaging System (LymphaTech, Atlanta, GA, USA) is a mobile, noninvasive platform that provides limb geometry measurements. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the reliability and validity of the LymphaTech for measuring arm volume in the context of women seeking care in a specialty breast cancer rehabilitation clinic. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional reliability and convergent validity study. METHODS: People who had stage I to IV breast cancer with lymphedema or were at risk for it were included. Arm volume was measured in 66 participants using the LymphaTech and perometer methods. Test-retest reliability for a single measure, limb volume difference, and agreement between methods was analyzed for 30 participants. A method-comparison analysis was also used to assess convergent validity between methods. RESULTS: Both LymphaTech and perometer methods displayed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of ≥0.99. The standard errors of measurement for the LymphaTech and length-matched perometer measurements were nearly identical. Similar intraclass correlation coefficients (0.97) and standard errors of measurement (38.0-40.7 mL) were obtained for the between-limb volume difference for both methods. The convergent validity analyses demonstrated no systematic difference between methods. LIMITATIONS: The sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. LymphaTech measurements included interrater variance, and perometer measurements contained intrarater variance. CONCLUSIONS: The LymphaTech had excellent test-retest reliability, and convergent validity was supported. This technology is efficient and portable and has a potential role in prospective surveillance and management of lymphedema in clinical, research, and home settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it